WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will no longer sponsor an awards program honoring voluntary corporate actions to combat global warming, it announced on Friday, the agency’s latest move to undo Obama-era climate change programs.

Since 2012, the EPA has been the lead sponsor of the Climate Leadership Awards program and conference, which recognizes companies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their internal operations and supply chains.

In an email sent on Friday, the EPA announced it will no longer be involved in the awards or the conference.

Under Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has repeatedly expressed doubts about climate change, the EPA has moved to undo dozens of Obama-era climate regulations in what it says is an effort to ease the regulatory burden on energy and agriculture companies.

In the Trump administration’s budget proposal for 2018, the EPA was the target of the largest cut – 31 percent – a figure that Republican and Democratic lawmakers opposed.

In Friday’s email, the EPA did not explain why it is eliminating the awards program, but apologized for the inconvenience of its announcement in the middle of the award application process. The awards were to be given out in Denver between Feb. 28 and March 2, 2018.

“It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that we don’t plan to fund an awards ceremony on climate change,” said Jahan Wilcox, EPA spokesman.

Shouldn’t businesses be rewarded by their customers rather than the government? If customers like the philosophy of the business, they will likely buy there. If they are really, really impressed, they may send a letter saying so and recommend the business to others. Government needs to stay out of these things completely.

The federal EPA should be abolished immediately. Environmental protection is not a federal imperative.
Any state may rule their own property and/or citizens with any amount of environmental protection deemed important to their residents. Alaska can have different environmental priorities than Florida, then adjust them as Alaskans see fit. If Wyoming wants to mine coal, then they can deal with it their own way.
If Californians wants to protect every bacterial cell and rock in their state, then tax their residents to pay for it, then they may do so, etc.

So if South Dakota wanted to dump nuclear waste in the Ogallala Aquifer, or New Mexico decided it was a good idea to send waste out-of-state down the Red River and/or Brazos River, it’s fine as long as SD and NM see it.

Ending this practice is the right move. But the timing is wrong.
Having started, the award cycle should finish.
If a company has entered this race they should be able to expect that the Government will be constant.

“In the Trump administration’s budget proposal for 2018, the EPA was the target of the largest cut – 31 percent – a figure that Republican and Democratic lawmakers opposed.”

Huh? If my memory serves me (don’t start!) Baroque Obama increased the EPA’s budget 156%. Thus, a 31% cut in its budget still leaves it at almost 108% over its pre-Baroque days. I think we can all agree that home values are not 108% over their 2008 (or former Great Recession) values; except, of course, for homes in D.C. Since Baroque took office the economy struggled to achieve a paltry 2% growth rate over the last 8 years, and that was after the loss incurred from the recession.

I’d say that a 31% cut is totally inadequate. I’d say that for the EPA to be permitted to retain a budget 108% over its pre-recession value is both immoral and an insult to the still struggling middle class. Those Republicans who objected to this 31% cut need to understand that the obscene actions of the Baroque Obama misadministration are what got Donald Trump elected, and they better start accepting that election.

But, but what about those really neat curly light bulbs that are so expensive and burn out too soon if you turn them on and off too much and have mercury in them to help poison our land fills? How can we possibly get along without the EPA?

Major problem I have is that they give off a smell of burning plastic, electrical fire oder. I have tried at least 6 different brands including the big name brands and all of them smell funny after a few weeks. The base of all seem to acquire a yellowish to light brown color within a few weeks use, and are very warm to the touch, some even to hot to touch As I was a volunteer fireman for many years I NEVER leave the house without making sure they are all shut off. Have seen two of them, upon turning on, arc, spark, like a mini fire works, and then go out. “Dissected” the base and there are capacitors, resistors, transistors?, diodes, coils and other electronic components in the base. None of these components seem large enough to handle the 15 to 25 watts that the fluorescent bulb is using, yet they go through these miniaturized components, have switched to LEDs and treat them the same way, however, have not had any fireworks or weird smell – yet.

“The agency spent $24,950 per year on sponsorship, plus travel and staff time for those managing the awards.”
I get suspicions when they mention such a minuscule number. Makes me wonder how much the travel and staff time cost really was….maybe millions! 1st class travel and accommodations, lobster, Kobe beef and champagne dinners? Yup. Probably millions. Can anyone provide those numbers?

The climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensicity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture is based upon only partial science and is full of flaws. The biggest flaw is that the AGW conjecture is based upon a radiant greenhouse effect that has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction as hence must be the AGW conjecture. The awards program is pointless because it has no effect on climate.

From the article: “In the Trump administration’s budget proposal for 2018, the EPA was the target of the largest cut – 31 percent – a figure that Republican and Democratic lawmakers opposed.”

More accurately, that should be “some” Republican lawmakers opposed. John McCain pours cold water on some policy and some reporters think he represents every other Republican. The Rino’s only represent themselves, they don’t speak for others in the Republican party. Rino’s do give the MSM the answers they want and that’s why they get interviewed. Rino’s LOVE being interviewed by the MSM.

Of course, it is a frequently used trick of the Left and the MSM to get a Rino to say something that supports the Left’s position, and then attribute that position to *all* Republicans.

It’s just like when the Left and the MSM want you to believe that they speak for all Americans. They don’t. They speak for themselves only, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to them talk.

For those old enough to remember, the EPA did need to be created. It has done some good work, and still needs to exist if only to monitor any backsliding on the progress it made, and to cast a wary eye on new developments.

However, to do these tasks it only needs to be a tiny fraction of its current size. It needs scientifically literate people supported by a small number of manegerial/support staff.

It’s remit should be limited to only those items submitted to it by Congress. No more extending its own empire.

Complete abolition would be a mistake. Like all government, it is good in small doses and a threat in larger form.

We must not perpetuate the fiction that EPA ever had any scientific expertise.

I have contracted for, permitted through, and squared off against EPA over 35 years, and, while I have met some kind and earnest staffers, I have never met one who was scientifically literate (I.e., credentialed). To approach them correctly, the job is always to (1) make nice, (2) be honest, and (3) scientifically educate them on the matter at hand. On the more politically-charged issues, one sometimes has to resort to a scientific body-slam by loading up with PhDs from MIT who can pin the EPA staff for a three count. Even then, they can sometimes maneuver free to achieve their ill-informed political intent (e.g., through pocket vetoes; through rationalizing proposed rules and ignoring public comments/criticisms; through kowtowing to NGOs; through sue and settle).

Like any corporate takeover or acquisition, Mr. Pruitt is simply right-sizing the bloated bureaucracy, casting off dead wood and refocusing on core mission.

If only EPA did have more scientifically credentialed and circumspect staff, but that could in fact be worse given the cesspool of post-modern environmental education. I always urge young persons who have an interest in the environment to attain degrees in a basic or applied science (e.g., chemistry; physics; geoscience; soil science) or engineering, not a generalist degree with the word “environmental” in it. They can always pick up the legal and integrative elements later, through personal study, job experience and/or post-graduate education. Plus, they may soon learn that “green” jobs are not real jobs and that true environmental jobs/careers are quite rare.